First Nations Launching Major Constitutional Challenge to Kill Bill 5, the Ford Government's Megadevelopment Law and Bill C5, Canada's Megaprojects Law
"These laws authorize the Crown governments to approve on a fast track major projects like Ring of Fire mining and pipelines, by short circuiting the need to get critical information about human and environmental safety and impacts and without involving the very peoples whose lands these projects would eat up," says Alderville First Nation Chief Taynar Simpson. "Our case is not a fight against development, it is a fight against dangerous development pushed ahead by factless, thoughtless and reckless decision making from government Ministers behind closed doors with little accountability."
"We First Nations are not against development per se. This is not about a battle between development and not," says Chief Todd Cornelius from Oneida Nation of the Thames. "It is about doing things recklessly and doing things right."
Both Bill 5 (provincial) and Bill C5 (federal) would authorize major projects without the need for proponents to apply for or get various permits and approvals, such as for environmental assessment, environmental protection, water taking, endangered species protection, cultural heritage assessment and the like. "Rushing headlong into major projects without knowing the costs, means the governments are playing a dangerous game with our lands and futures. In the Ring of Fire area, this could be disastrous. That region is peatlands, which is a globally critical carbon sink that must stay intact if it is to counter climate change. If parts of it are destroyed through mining and infrastructure, this could unravel the whole thing, and that would be catastrophic," says Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin. "Our way of life, our children's futures, and our shared environment which is the basis of all life, is not a pawn in some political game."
"The Crown governments are using the Trump tariffs as an excuse to say that all of this development is suddenly urgent. But these tariffs are not likely to be around forever and may well be gone before anything can be built even on an expedited basis," says Chief Sheri Taylor of Ginoogaming First Nation. "Panicking over the short term is not a reason to sacrifice the very values Canada says it holds dear and long term viability of lands and people. If Canada and Ontario are so worried about threats to Canada from a bullying US President whose administration has been stripping human rights protections, then why are Canada and Ontario supposedly answering those threats with their own laws that bully First Nations and strip human rights and environmental protections here? Would that not make this country the very thing we are trying to avoid being imposed on us?"
Chief June Black of Apitipi Anicinapek Nation says, "Bill 5 and Bill C5 are severe setbacks in the relationship between First Peoples of this land from whom far too much has been taken already and who are trying to get some of that back. We have the right to pursue our ways of life on our lands including to be part of the decision making about major developments that would take land and choices away from us. We should be moving toward a shared future and not a dictatorial one."
For further information contact:
Kate Kempton, Senior Counsel, Woodward and Co. Lawyers LLP
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 416-571-6775
Lina Santana
Email: [email protected])
Phone: 647-472-6838
SOURCE Woodward & Co.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Indian Act's ‘second-generation cut-off' poses an existential threat to treaty people in Canada
Lou Moodie is gesturing at an easel with a golf club. On the paper behind his makeshift pointer is a set of unconventional math formulas, including 6(2) + 6(2) = 6(1) and 6(1) + 6(1) = 6(1). 'I call this 'Indian arithmetic!'' pronounces the 61-year-old from Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. With that, Moodie starts quizzing the group of 15 or so people assembled at a hotel on Long Plain First Nation's urban reserve in Winnipeg, for this April training session on the intricacies of Indian status. Moodie is the retired recreation superintendent for Nisichawayasihk, some 850 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg, who, with the enthusiasm of a camp counsellor, runs a game of Simon Says and jokes about the foibles of technology. ('This mouse did not eat today!' he quips when a file won't load.) Despite moments of levity, the topic Moodie has driven nearly 20 hours round-trip to talk about — a particularly convoluted section of the Indian Act — is not a lighthearted one. Lou Moodie wants to see the cut-off repealed; in the meantime, he's trying to help families get around its limits. (Mikaela MacKenzie / Free Press) Written into law in 1876, the Indian Act has long sought to control the lives of First Nations people in Canada, including the very question of who — as far as the federal government is concerned — is an 'Indian.' And though that term is considered offensive when used by non-Indigenous people, it remains the signifier lodged in Canadian law. The part of the act Moodie is concerned with is a more recent addition — it became law on April 17, 1985. After this date, whenever a First Nations child is born to two parents with Indian status, they can be registered under Section 6(1) of the Indian Act. But when a child is born to one parent with status and one without (or where the child's father is not identified), they can only be registered under Section 6(2). People with 6(2) status are faced with a harsh reality: unless they parent with another person with status, their children will no longer be eligible for status. This is known as the 'second-generation cut-off.' Moodie describes the cut-off as genocide 'in paper form' — a discriminatory, assimilationist policy designed to legally get rid of First Nations people, akin to earlier iterations of the Indian Act, which forced First Nations children into residential schools. He wants to 'take a flamethrower to this entire sub-section' and see it repealed. In the meantime, he's trying to help families get around its limits. 'We want to determine who our members are. We, First Nations, not you,' Moodie says. 'We don't want this category 6(1), 6(2). We're not numbers — we're human beings.' Indian status is the vehicle for First Nations people to access the rights and benefits to which they are entitled. And while many First Nations people see the concept of status as offensive and paternalistic, there's also the sense that without it, the federal government could skirt the responsibilities, obligations and promises it has made to First Nations people. As far as its significance, holding status can give a person the right to hunt and fish on their treaty lands; to reap (often minuscule) treaty payments; receive financial aid for post-secondary education; and a tax exemption for income earned on-reserve. It also provides insurance for certain health-care costs, such as counselling, dental work and medications. As trailblazing Cree lawyer Delia Opekokew said in 1986, the reasons for someone desiring status are not just legal, but social. They might include the pride of being part of a collective group, with a protected birthright; the right to live in one's community; and even in death, to be buried on-reserve and remain there with the ancestors of their First Nation, Opekokew explained. The 6(1) and 6(2) delineations were added to the Indian Act in 1985 as a result of legislation known as Bill C-31, which ended the federal government's practice — over more than 150 years — of stripping status from First Nations women who married non-status men. (First Nations men who married non-status women did not receive the same treatment; in fact, their spouses were given status). While Bill C-31 enabled tens of thousands of First Nations women and some of their descendants to receive status, it quietly implemented a more restrictive system for passing on status than had existed before. The current system, which has seen several piecemeal amendments since 1985, is often described with words like incomprehensible and nonsensical — or, as an act of 'retaliation.' For children born after April 16, 1985 Today, of the 1.1 million status First Nations people in Canada, nearly 325,000 — or 29 per cent — are registered under Section 6(2). With their descendants at risk of being excluded from their rights, the second-generation cut-off has triggered a disquieting question: without treaty people, what happens to treaty lands? Even Ottawa has previously stated that the status populations of First Nations are expected to decline in the coming generations because of its restrictive rules, which could impact federal government funding. Virtually since the cut-off was enacted, there have been calls for its repeal. They've come from a Senate committee; from First Nations political bodies like the Southern Chiefs' Organization; legal scholars and advocates like Sharon McIvor, whose landmark case in 2009 forced Ottawa to remedy some of the lingering discrimination against women in the Indian Act; and recently, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 'I think we have inadvertently invited in an evil that threatens our very existence as treaty Indians,' wrote Jack Grieves of the Keewatin Tribal Council, which represents 11 First Nations in northern Manitoba, in a 1992 open letter. Predicting that Bill C-31 would ultimately lead to a declining treaty population and 'empty and unowned' reserves, Grieves went on to ask: was it already too late? 'Is there anything we can do to remedy this situation confronting our treaty people and those who thought they were getting their treaty rights back for future generations?' Growing up on the south side of Berens River in the 1960s, Carrie Whiteway Prystupa was taught to be self-reliant. Still decades before a road would eventually come to the community on the eastern shore of Lake Winnipeg, homes were built with logs, water was hauled from a hole in the ice and light came from coal-oil lamps or gas lanterns. Across the river was Berens River First Nation. In the winter, Whiteway Prystupa's family would travel there by snowmobile, and in the summer, by boat. And that's the name of where Whiteway Prystupa grew up: 'agamiing,' meaning 'across' in Saulteaux, which she grew up speaking. This isolated piece of land, cleared by her Whiteway family, was also known as the 'Métis side' of the river. As far as Whiteway Prystupa was aware at the time — and, as far as the federal government was concerned — she and her family were Métis. When Whiteway Prystupa and her family visited relatives and shopped for essentials on the reserve, that separation was clear. Some people referred to them as 'ozagamoog,' or, 'outsiders.' Carrie Whiteway Prystupa poses for a photo in the early 1960s on the 'Métis side' of Berens River, along with five of her eight siblings. From left to right (lower) is Carrie, Eileen, Diane (held by Eileen), Myrna and Jo-Ann. At top is Whiteway Prystupa's maternal grandfather Jacob, who is holding Gilbert, and grandmother Alice. Not pictured is her sister Nancy, while siblings Jackie and Stan hadn't yet been born. Alice was the granddaughter of the first chief of Berens River First Nation. (Supplied) It hadn't always been that way. Nearly a century ago, Whiteway Prystupa's grandmother, Sarah, a status member of Berens River, married a non-status man. Her Indian status erased, Sarah left the reserve and went agamiing, where, with her husband, she raised 10 children, including Whiteway Prystupa's father — none of whom held status growing up. Thirty-odd years later, in 1955, Whiteway Prystupa's mother, Helen, who also was a status member of Berens River, married her father, Fred. Helen had attended an Indian day school run by Roman Catholic nuns and her great-grandfather was a signatory of Treaty 5. Nonetheless, with their marriage, Helen also lost her status and went to live agamiing. Several years after Bill C-31 passed, Whiteway Prystupa, who was then in her early 30s and married with three kids, became a status member of Berens River for the first time. Four decades later, she explained what it meant: 'Maybe, I am not 'ozagamoo,' an outsider, after all.' But for her descendants, this reclamation of status could prove brief. Carrie Whiteway Prystupa grew up believing she was Métis. She is among those calling for a repeal of federal legislation that she says is discriminatory and fails to recognize her heritage. (Mikaela MacKenzie / Free Press) With Whiteway Prystupa's marriage to a non-status man, the second-generation cut-off has begun to loom over their family. Her first son, who was born in 1982 before C-31 was passed, was ultimately able to be registered under Section 6(1). But her younger two sons, born in 1986 and 1991, were registered under Section 6(2). Though all of her three sons have non-status spouses, their dates of birth are critical. The children of Whiteway Prystupa's oldest son have 6(2) status, while the future children of her two younger sons will not be entitled to it. It was about five years ago when Whiteway Prystupa first learned there are two different types of status — and what that could mean for her descendants. And Whiteway Prystupa is not alone; she notes many First Nations people aren't aware of the cut-off. But Whiteway Prystupa is not giving up. Whiteway Prystupa written a book called Neen Ozagamoo, or Me an Outsider, which she self-published earlier this month. (Mikaela MacKenzie / Free Press) Last summer, she heard Lou Moodie talk at a Treaty 5 summit. That meeting led to her to join Moodie and other grassroots organizers on a cross-country trip to Ottawa, where they spoke with federal politicians and staff, calling for the repeal of categories 6(1) and 6(2). Whiteway Prystupa has also written a book called Neen Ozagamoo, or Me an Outsider, which she self-published earlier this month. 'I feel I'm being discriminated against and targeted,' she said. 'That's our inheritance.' Like Whiteway Prystupa, Joy Budd grew up without status, thinking she was Métis. After Bill C-31 passed, Budd became a member of Cumberland House Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. When she was signing her first status card as a teenager, Budd remembers a membership clerk telling her she held 6(2) status — and couldn't pass it on to her children. 'At that time, I didn't know what it meant — I'm 16 years old. And now the complication has come,' said Budd, who goes by Glenda, and now lives in Thompson. For Budd's family, the story of their loss of status began with the Second World War. Like other First Nations men, Budd's biological grandfather was 'enfranchised' — removed from the Indian registrar — as a result of his service in the Canadian military. While he was away at war, Budd's grandmother married a Métis man, losing her status as a result. In the next generation, Budd's father married a Métis woman and then when Budd, with 6(2) status, had children with a Métis man, the second-generation cut-off came to pass. Her kids weren't eligible. Budd raised her kids as a single mother — and despite her working consistently, there were financial challenges associated with her children being non-status, such as saving up for costly dental work. 'We were struggling just to try and have basic needs met. That means my children, I could never afford college or university for them,' she said. Joy Budd gained 6(2) status following the passing of Bill C-31 in 1985. However, her children and grandchildren currently lack status.(John Woods / Free Press) Budd lived for two years on the Cumberland House reserve when her kids were younger, but because they were non-status, they were not allowed to go to the treaty school. Her children are now 32 and 28 years old. Even though her son had children with a woman who has 6(2) status, his three children remain ineligible for status. Two have specific medical needs, but, because they are non-status, they aren't eligible for support from Jordan's Principle for medical appointments, she said, referring to the federal government's legal obligation to ensure First Nations children have access to proper health care, among other supports. Because of amendments to the Indian Act in 2017, known as Bill S-3, Budd is likely eligible to have her status changed to 6(1). If successful, her son could receive 6(2) status and her grandkids could receive 6(1). For years, Budd has been asking questions about whether she might be eligible for 6(1) status, but she never received concrete answers. First Nations advocates point out that because of the law's convoluted nature and Ottawa's failure to communicate its far-reaching implications, only a fraction of the people eligible to register as a result of Bill S-3 have actually done so. For people who were born before April 17, 1985 (or whose parents married before that date), and whose grandmother had their status taken away through marriage, S-3 means that they are eligible for 6(1) status. In the meantime, Budd wants Section 6(2) repealed. 'What's at stake is our Indigenous culture, our treaty rights, our rights as Indigenous people,' she said. As Budd pointed out, the treaties signed between Indigenous peoples and the Crown were meant to be in place for 'as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.' 'And, you know, the sun is still shining, even though it's smoky over Thompson. I know there's a sun out there somewhere,' she said. The idea for the second-generation cut-off appears to have originated in a federal committee hearing in 1982. A now-defunct First Nations organization suggested a kernel of the policy, though specified that any child with less than 50 per cent First Nation ancestry should have their status determined by their band. According to Indigenous Services' website, to request a status category amendment you must compile the following: Your First Nation's office may be able to receive your application, or these documents can either be brought in-person to Manitoba's regional office at 361 Hargrave St. in Winnipeg, or mailed to: Application Processing Unit Indigenous Services Canada Box 6700, Winnipeg, MB R3C 5R5 The committee weighed the proposal warily: '(this) would probably create another series of inequities regarding children who do and do not have status in the same family.' Still, it became law soon after. Nearly four decades later, in 2019, a report on the lingering gender discrimination in the Indian Act flagged the cut-off as the inequality of 'greatest concern.' Smaller, non-isolated communities with a higher rate of 'marrying out' were set to see the negative effects more quickly, some in a single generation, wrote Claudette Dumont-Smith, a special representative to the Crown-Indigenous relations minister. She recommended the federal government launch a consultation process over the cut-off, which began in late 2023. A committee of Indigenous organizations was appointed to advise on how to proceed. According to an initial report, these organizations emphasized the need for First Nations people to have support conducting geological research. The Assembly of First Nations Manitoba also suggested the creation of a records office that would allow people to trace how their family lost status. Indigenous Services has also published a fact-sheet for each First Nation detailing the number of members who hold 6(2) status. (In Manitoba, this group represents 15 to 45 per cent of First Nations' overall status membership — see data for each First Nation in a chart below.) The same disclaimer is found on each fact-sheet: 'even as your Nation's population grows over time, (your Nation's) total registered populations are likely to decrease in size,' however in a comment this week, an Indigenous Services' spokesperson said their latest projections show the status population continuing to grow until the end of the modelling period in 2066. Public-facing consultation events and engagement sessions have yet to begin, the spokesperson, Eric Head, confirmed. Minister of Indigenous Services Mandy Gull-Masty leaves a caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Despite repeated requests, Gull-Masty was not made available for an interview by press time. (Sean Kilpatrick / The Canadian Press files) Despite repeated requests, beginning a month ago, Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty was not made available for an interview by press time. Head said the department is committed to working with First Nations to address the cut-off, and added that the current consultation process is not focused on 'whether to address the issue, but on how to address the issue.' Claire Truesdale, a non-Indigenous lawyer who has helped around 50 people apply for status, believes more urgency is needed. She pointed to the fact the federal government has known for years — at least since the McIvor case in 2009 — how problematic the cut-off is. 'They've acknowledged that this is a problem but they have been incredibly slow to do anything about it,' she said. The government's stance — that there is not agreement among First Nations on how to proceed — is a poor reason for failing to act with urgency, she said. 'Kids are being excluded now,' she added. Drew Lafond, president of the national Indigenous Bar Association, said the question of Indian status has essentially become a 'red herring.' 'The debate over who is — and who is not — a status Indian, I think, ignores the fundamental, or foundational question of when did Indigenous peoples, if ever, relinquish their jurisdiction over determining who is and who is not a citizen of their nation?' Lafond said. 'To my knowledge, that has never taken place,' added the lawyer, who has long worked on issues surrounding status and citizenship, and is a member of Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan, though he points out he maintains kinship relationships throughout Western Canada. A federal government that 'facilitates and authorizes' the disenrolment of Indigenous people without their consent is a violation of the human rights of Indigenous people, Lafond said, referencing Article 9 of the United Nations' Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states Indigenous people have the right to belong to their community or Nation in accordance with that group's traditions and customs. 'To say nothing of how ridiculous the formula has become over the years,' he added. In the past, the federal government has taken an ominous tone when discussing the possible effects of repealing the cut-off. During a Senate committee hearing in 2022, Christiane Fox, then a deputy minister with Indigenous Services, warned the move would lead to 250,000 more people with status, 'at minimum,' which, she added, 'will substantively impact the registration process and, of course, programs and services that are offered.' According to demographic projections by Statistics Canada, which had been produced just days before Fox's Senate appearance, the cut-off's repeal would lead to 173,000 extra registrants by 2041 in a medium-growth scenario. More recent modelling projects an even lower number: 121,800 extra registrants by 2046, according to Statistics Canada records obtained through an access-to-information request. What's clear from the records is that the federal department is closely tracking the financial implications of changing its registration criteria. (The Free Press filed a similar request with Indigenous Services nine months ago; after requesting a lengthy extension and failing to meet that deadline, the department has yet to provide the files.) The records give a sense of the possible population impacts facing First Nations — if changes are not made. In a medium-growth scenario, the annual rate of growth of the status population is projected to take a nosedive: from 2.05 per cent in 2021 to 0.05 in 2066. In a low-growth scenario, the growth rate is projected to 'turn negative' by 2055, indicating a decline in the overall population size. What's also clear from these records is that the federal department is closely tracking the financial implications of changing its registration criteria. In an email last fall, a project leader for Indigenous Service's registration reform team wrote: 'The team and I would like to begin costing out the differences in costing between keeping the registration provisions as is versus remedying the second-generation cut-off.' Seated in a Winnipeg hotel restaurant booth, Lou Moodie places a file on the table that speaks to his mission — it shows a family's successful journey in getting their child's status changed from 6(2) to 6(1). Because the father wasn't initially listed on the child's birth certificate, the child had been registered under section 6(2). Lou Moodie has made it his mission to educate First Nations peoples on how to reclaim status. (Mikaela MacKenzie / Free Press) While the federal government has taken some steps to make it easier for children to acquire status when their father is not listed on their birth certificate or is not known, the Indian Act still assumes the father is non-status if not identified. (Moodie often points out that there are many reasons for a woman not identifying the father, from relationship breakdowns to high-risk scenarios like rape or domestic violence.) In this child's case, the process involved ordering a new long-form birth certificate — not a copy — with the father included; filling out a statutory declaration from Indigenous Services, which has to be signed by a notary; and then mailing the package with copies of the parents' ID, along with, Moodie suggests, a letter of intent, reiterating the father's information. It's easy to use the wrong form or miss a spot for an initial, which can lead to lengthy delays. One of Moodie's pieces of advice is to avoid using correction tape and instead, cross out and initial any mistakes. But in this case, just a few weeks later, a letter arrived saying the child's registration category code had been amended. Since his retirement two years ago, Moodie has been travelling to First Nations to train their staff on how to convert children with 6(2) status to 6(1), as well to register non-status kids, when possible, while running a TikTok channel, where, with his daughter's help, he's amassed roughly 10,000 followers. He's also been hosting two-day conferences, with help from his family, including his wife, Edna; his son, Lou, Jr.; and his 'Irish son' Garrett, whom he adopted as an adult. He has no funding source behind him, whether from the federal government or his First Nation, which is what he tells people irritated by the $800 cost of his conferences. With nearly 325,000 people holding 6(2) status in Canada, Moodie points out that this problem isn't a theoretical one, it's already here. Depending on with whom these people parent, 'That's 325,000 treaties gone — just like that,' Moodie says, snapping his fingers. But there's another reason for Moodie's urgency. He wants his own grandchildren to be free to choose who they grow up to love, marry and have children with. 'I don't want (my granddaughter) to ever come to say to me, say, 'Papa, can I go out with this Anglo Saxon?' Don't ask me that question, if you love the man, go ahead. I'll never, ever say to you, 'no, no, you stick with your own,'' Moodie says. 'I've never agreed with that — never will.' Marsha McLeodInvestigative reporter Signal Marsha is an investigative reporter. She joined the Free Press in 2023. Read full biography Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Cision Canada
16 hours ago
- Cision Canada
Prime Minister Carney and Inuit leadership meet as the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee
INUVIK, NT, July 24, 2025 /CNW/ - Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Natan Obed, federal Cabinet ministers, and elected Inuit leadership from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Makivvik, and the Nunatsiavut Government gathered for a meeting of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee (ICPC) in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Since the signing of the Inuit Nunangat Declaration in 2017, the Government of Canada and Inuit leaders have continued to meet three times annually and work together through the ICPC to advance shared priorities, strengthen the Inuit-Crown partnership, and create a more prosperous Inuit Nunangat. During today's meeting, the leaders discussed the Building Canada Act and how to implement it effectively and consistently with Inuit Modern Treaties and in partnership with Inuit. In addition to the Building Canada Act, federal and Inuit leaders discussed the infrastructure needs in Inuit Nunangat, Canada's Arctic Foreign Policy, and the need to further protect the security and sovereignty of the Arctic and Inuit Nunangat. They also addressed other urgent priorities, including health and social issues such as housing in Inuit Nunangat. The leaders underscored opportunities to build together to address these challenges and deliver meaningful economic prosperity. In Inuvik, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Virginia Mearns as Canada's Arctic Ambassador, effective September 15, 2025. The Ambassador's mandate will focus on reinforcing Canada's Arctic engagement with like-minded partners and multilateral forums, bolstering Arctic sovereignty, and advancing opportunities for security and growth. Inuit leaders and the federal government reaffirmed their shared commitment to working together on priorities through the ICPC. Quotes "Today's Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee meeting was about building our shared future and Inuit Nunangat's full economic potential. In partnership, Inuit and the federal government will build major projects that connect and transform our economy, create greater prosperity and opportunities, and build a stronger Canada." — The Rt. Hon. Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada "Now in its ninth year, the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee remains an essential tool for advancing shared priorities. This includes increasing investment in Inuit Nunangat through implementation of the Building Canada Act in a way that is consistent with Inuit treaties and in partnership with Inuit. We welcome the opportunity to continue this important work with Mark Carney, to strengthen our partnership and build lasting prosperity for Inuit in Inuit Nunangat and across Canada. We also celebrate today's announcement of Virginia Mearns as Canada's Arctic Ambassador, a position that was developed through the ICPC." — Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami "In order to build stronger, healthier communities and a thriving economy, we must work together. For that reason, projects that move forward in Inuit Nunangat will do so in partnership with Inuit. We're committed to engaging, listening, and working with local communities and Inuit leadership to ensure their priorities and perspectives are reflected in the work ahead. Today's meeting is an important step forward in making sure the Building Canada Act supports a better future for Inuit across Inuit Nunangat." — The Hon. Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations "Canada will build major projects in true partnership with Inuit, and we'll be guided by equity, inclusion, and shared prosperity. Through consultation and collaboration, Inuit voices are shaping the future of infrastructure, sovereignty, and economic opportunity across Inuit Nunangat." — The Hon. Rebecca Chartrand, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency "Canada is an Arctic nation, and we are at a critical moment, when it is imperative that we safeguard our sovereignty and defend our Arctic interests. Serving as Canada's senior Arctic official, Ambassador Mearns will advance Canada's polar interests in multilateral forums, engage with counterparts in Arctic and non-Arctic states, and serve as a representative in our diplomatic corps." — The Hon. Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs Quick facts Inuit Nunangat is the Inuit homeland in Canada. It encompasses the land, water, and ice of four treaty regions represented by the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik in Northern Québec, and Nunatsiavut in Northern Labrador. The Building Canada Act ensures consultation with Inuit and other Indigenous Peoples is built into the implementation process for determining whether a project is in the national interest and for the development of the conditions for permits and authorizations. The Building Canada Act ensures respect for treaty rights, including modern treaties with Inuit Treaty Organizations. It does not alter processes established under modern treaties or the Government of Canada's modern treaty obligations. It also respects treaty-based environmental assessment processes. Canada's new Arctic Ambassador, Virginia Mearns, is a respected Inuit leader with a long-standing commitment to advancing Inuit self-determination and community well-being in Nunavut. She currently serves as Senior Director of Inuit Relations at the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and has held senior roles in the Government of Nunavut and with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. An active member of her community, she was awarded the King Charles III Coronation Medal for her exceptional contributions. Since the signing of the Inuit Nunangat Declaration in 2017, Inuit leadership and the Government of Canada have continued to work together through the ICPC toward a renewed Inuit-Crown relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, and co-operation. The Inuit Nunangat Policy promotes Inuit self-determination and supports community and individual well-being throughout Inuit Nunangat, with the goal of achieving socio-economic equity between Inuit and all other people living in Canada. It provides a minimum standard for what can be expected from the relationship between Inuit and all federal departments and agencies, and includes guidance to federal departments and agencies on how to deliver programs, policies, and services in Inuit Nunangat. This document is also available at
National Observer
17 hours ago
- National Observer
Carney talking major projects with Inuit leaders in Inuvik
An Inuit leader who met Thursday with Prime Minister Mark Carney to discuss the federal government's controversial major projects legislation says he has been assured the bill respects treaty rights. Natan Obed, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, told reporters in Inuvik, N.W.T., that leaders attending the meeting of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee with Carney have had a "fulsome conversation" about Bill C-5. "We've had reassurances that the bill … will not interrupt the processes under our modern treaties and that there will be full partnership of Inuit within these processes," he said. Carney spent much of Thursday meeting with Inuit leaders to discuss the legislation, also known as the One Canadian Economy Act. Ahead of the meeting, Inuit leaders said they had a lot to work through with the federal government. During an afternoon break in the meeting, Obed said Carney was unequivocal in saying the legislation would not violate modern treaties. "When it comes to project reviews, the focus has been on what types of nation-building projects are Inuit interested in building, how can we identify those projects together, and then, how can we make good on those projects by implementing them," he said. Inuit leaders said they've received reassurances that the bill will not interrupt the processes under their modern treaties with Canada, and that their people will be invited to participate in full partnership with Carney's government. "So the prime minister and his cabinet ministers couldn't have been any clearer in their assurances to Inuit leadership about the upholding of the constitutionally protected agreements that we have with the Crown." The recently passed One Canadian Economy Act gives Ottawa the power to fast-track projects it considers to be in the national interest by sidestepping environmental protections and other legislation. Some Indigenous leaders have accused the federal government of failing to consult with them adequately when the legislation was being drafted and amended. Obed previously criticized the federal government over the legislation and told senators studying it last month that Ottawa has been hypocritical in its approach to reconciliation. He said at the time the legislation doesn't respect Indigenous Peoples' rights and warned that fast-tracked projects could end up before the courts. One court challenge has already been launched by First Nations asking a judge to find the legislation unconstitutional. Carney promised the day the bill was passed to hold talks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders to get input on how projects can proceed. After Carney met with First Nations leaders in Ottawa last week, some chiefs said they were left with more questions than answers and no clear idea of how the government plans to implement its agenda. In his opening remarks Thursday, Carney said there's much work to be done on closing infrastructure gaps and improving social services in the Arctic, and warned that the region's security is under threat. He also insisted that Bill C-5 "fully respects" treaty rights. "It fully respects treaty-based environmental assessment processes," said Carney. "In fact, those will be essential for anything that we move forward. "What the act does is it creates conditions for the federal government to be more effective and efficient in our part of the partnership." Several cabinet ministers, including Northern Affairs Minister Rebecca Chartrand and Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty, also attended Thursday's meeting. — With files from Alessia Passafiume and Dylan Robertson in Ottawa.
